A rare 0-for-3 in a UDRP.
French online retailer Rue Du Commerce lost all three elements in its recent UDRP filing against a Mexican company called Siru over the domain name SiruEcommerce.com. But Czech Arbitration Court panelist Dr. Thomas Schafft didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking.
The case was particularly egregious.
The most notable issue is that the domain name was registered by a company called Siru. Hence, SiruEcommerce.com. Did Rue Du Commerce not take a look at whois?
Arguing that RueDuCommerce, which I believe roughly translates to “street of commerce”, is confusingly similar to SiruEcommerce is laughable.
I really hope there was some sort of lost-in-translation issue here.
Given that the respondent’s company name is Siru, Rue Du Commerce also failed to show the respondent lacked legitimate rights and registered the domain in bad faith.
The respondent did not reply to the proceedings. Still, any time a complainant fails on all three measures, a panelist should consider if the case was filed in abuse of the policy.